halofanonfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Civility Warnings - Beneficial to user relations or a time waster?
Voting (PASSED) As per the discussion, enough people have shown interest in the opposition and approval fields to warrant a vote. Please enter your vote and username in the respective categories below! Support (10/2) #As per my statements above and those below in the comments section. CT Sig small #As per my comment below. #As per up top and down below--RichardRHunt (talk) ( ) 16:37, April 23, 2011 (UTC) #As per below. #Second Lieutenant Keith Johnson com link 17:41, April 23, 2011 (UTC) #As much as the Banning System was wonderful at the time, it just makes things confusing now. For example, recently with Xzan Tamasee's article, I knew that he needed a short cooldown ban because he was being uncivil, but there's not one for incivility anymore - only the one for "personal attacks and disruptive articles" comes close. I think this is a much better system. Of course, only time will tell. --Am I a Lion, or a Lamb? Or a Boy? Saint o The Lost Books 19:43, April 23, 2011 (UTC) #As per above and below. [[User:Nanosoldier|''Nanosoldier]] #If it decreases the amount of stupid talk page arguments and helps resolves these situations faster, then I'm all for it. #Per above with Actene. As I am a good boy, this hardly coincides with me but it goes for the others. Have a good day and may let this be the end for the senseless flame wars and spam. # Since I'm such a nice logical man, I'll support this venture. --[[User:Spartan G-23|''SPARTAN-G023]] ''Viae Cohors Gamma Sparti'' 03:08, April 24, 2011 (UTC) # Phalanx Actual 18:32, April 24, 2011 (UTC) Neutral (3/0) #It's better in theory because it gets the fact of punishment across clearer to the recipient, but there's a greater chance for human error and anger to deal more damage, if those administering them are not responsible. I believe they will be responsible, and remain so today, but it still sounds rather dicey. [[User:Tuckerscreator|''Tuckerscreator]](stalk) 18:26, April 23, 2011 (UTC) ##There's a difference between "Human error" and "misjudgement." The former deals with incorrectly setting the wrong time for a ban, whereas the latter suggests a mistake in the ban itself. And personally, any Administrator (none of which serve today) have ever let their emotions get in the way of their duties in recent memory. CT Sig small #I'm voting neutral because they don't ignore the warnings, but they could quite possibly just jump back in after the cooldown ban even angrier. I'm neutral because I doubt this proposal sounds good though. EliteMaster117 18:58, April 23, 2011 (UTC) ##What you fail to understand is that most with warnings don't heed them. And after a cooldown ban, it's the same as if the civility warnings were still in play, they'd simply get banned again. Please do your research prior to voting. CT Sig small #Like the two points above. In my opinion it should also depend on the severity of the offense, thus the number of warnings given should rely on the administrater's judgement. ##That was one of the suggestions... CT Sig small Oppose (1/0) #Some administrators look at the background of problems and there are those that just react quickly, this new system relies even more on the judgement of individuals. Depending on who the administrator is, this could work really well, or really badly. But I understand that being an administrator would be frustrating and that you would want to have clear, quick rules. If situations are looked at from a neutral perspective, all is fair, but there could be more room for human error in the new system. ##Seems like I have to double repeat myself today, "there's a difference between Human error and misjudgment, you are thinking of the latter." And you are referring directly to the latter suggestion in my previous post, whereas most have approved the use of the "one warning and cooldown ban" method. As Administrative methods, please do not think you can talk about how we run business. Each Admin looks at the background of a particular situation and acts accordingly in a timely fashion. Referring to the "well or bad" bit, you have failed to read the "temporary clause" on the latter suggestion in my proposal. And i'll repeat myself again today, ''please read before making your vote. CT Sig small ##I suppose I regard human judgement as part of human error. I thought that is what you put out there to discuss. I didn't realise that my opinion of what I read could be deemed wrong. It's just my opinion and I understand that administrators might prefer simpler systems, but all systems that involve human judgement are complex. That's all that I'm saying. Comments :Per Spartan-091. :) — subtank (7alk) 12:28, April 23, 2011 (UTC)